Forums

Pointless QB exercise Topic

The comparisons on profootballreference are part of a rather dodgy algorithm to begin with. And passer rating is more focused on efficiency than effectiveness. Hell, Tony Romo and Philip Rivers were in the top ten ALL TIME in passer rating. Right there, that tells you that it is not a good barometer.

Anderson was an OK quarterback (frankly Boomer was probably better). One of the top 32? I don't think so.

Baugh benefitted by being the 1st or 2nd legitimate throwing threat (depends on whether you count Arnie Herber). Defenses didn't know how to handle him at first. (He also lost 73-0 in a Championship Game). Still, he's most famous for being the pioneer at the position. (and the Pro Bowl didn't start until 1950... if he made it, it was as a punter)

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):For the Aikman lovers - what exactly did he do, stat-wise. It's not so hard to win championships with Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and a fantastic defense. Aikman nearly threw as many picks as TDs in a pass-friendly era.

Aikman played roughly concurrently with Favre and Young. He won more Super Bowls than they did.. .COMBINED. Sure, he had Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin, but did it ever occur to you that Emmitt might have benefitted from having a strong-armed, accurate quarterback keeping the defenses honest? And Irvin is totally overrated in my opinion. That guy pushed off more than any receiver in history.

Aikman threw when he needed to, and did it very very well. If there's one thing he had in his favor in Dallas, it was the O-line.

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/25/2013 6:11:00 PM (view original):I'm confused Todd...Marino and Fouts are pretty much the same QB. Rapey and Eli are pretty much the same QB (stat-wise). So how was one pick good and one pick bad, in both cases?

And Mike, quit bashing my group or I'll have Ben molest all your picks.

Marino was a (much) better version of Fouts. Roethlisberger is a better version of Eli. You don't need to double up on their resumes.

If you had gone Marino, Graham, Roethilsberger with your first 3 picks, you'd have a better team.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 6:15:00 PM (view original):Young is head and shoulders above Aikman. You play to win the game, but the talent of the QB isnt just simply correlated to Super Bowl wins.

No, it's not correlated. But contemporaries can provide reasonable comparisons. Young was more efficient AND prolific than Aikman. Aikman won more titles, including most of the head-to-heads against Young. I'm not arguing that Aikman is better than Young. I'm saying he's better than Rodgers, Brees, Favre, and Tarkenton.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 6:15:00 PM (view original):Young is head and shoulders above Aikman. You play to win the game, but the talent of the QB isnt just simply correlated to Super Bowl wins.

No, it's not correlated. But contemporaries can provide reasonable comparisons. Young was more efficient AND prolific than Aikman. Aikman won more titles, including most of the head-to-heads against Young. I'm not arguing that Aikman is better than Young. I'm saying he's better than Rodgers, Brees, Favre, and Tarkenton.

I like Brees, Favre, and Tarkenton more than Aikman. And in a 5 years or so, probably Rodgers.

The comparisons on profootballreference are part of a rather dodgy algorithm to begin with. And passer rating is more focused on efficiency than effectiveness. Hell, Tony Romo and Philip Rivers were in the top ten ALL TIME in passer rating. Right there, that tells you that it is not a good barometer.

Anderson was an OK quarterback (frankly Boomer was probably better). One of the top 32? I don't think so.

Baugh benefitted by being the 1st or 2nd legitimate throwing threat (depends on whether you count Arnie Herber). Defenses didn't know how to handle him at first. (He also lost 73-0 in a Championship Game). Still, he's most famous for being the pioneer at the position. (and the Pro Bowl didn't start until 1950... if he made it, it was as a punter)

Stats are different now then they were earlier. It's a passing league now. But if you lead the league in QB rating, it suggests that you're the most efficient, and possibly the best, QB that year. Efficiency and effectiveness generally go hand in hand.

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/25/2013 5:36:00 PM (view original):For the Aikman lovers - what exactly did he do, stat-wise. It's not so hard to win championships with Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and a fantastic defense. Aikman nearly threw as many picks as TDs in a pass-friendly era.

Aikman played roughly concurrently with Favre and Young. He won more Super Bowls than they did.. .COMBINED. Sure, he had Emmitt Smith and Michael Irvin, but did it ever occur to you that Emmitt might have benefitted from having a strong-armed, accurate quarterback keeping the defenses honest? And Irvin is totally overrated in my opinion. That guy pushed off more than any receiver in history.

Aikman threw when he needed to, and did it very very well. If there's one thing he had in his favor in Dallas, it was the O-line.